Which are the Higgs implications for GR?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The apparent confirmation of the Higgs Boson pose an interesting set of, conclusions. On one hand we have sort of a "resurrection" of aether, which is uncomfortable on its own. I'm interested in what knowledgeable members think in regarding this discovery and the implications for GR. AFAIK, both the Standard Model in physics (dealing with subatomic particles) and GR (dealing with the universe at large) are incompatible.

 

[Vorpal]

What "resurrection" of the aether? The Higgs field is no more of an aether than the color fields or the electromagnetic field or whatever.

I can't think of applications to GTR per se, other than perhaps making some the invocation of the Higgs field in attempts to deal with a cosmological constant be a bit more grounded in reality. But I am not in a good position to understand the implications.

 

[sol invictus]

The apparent confirmation of the Higgs Boson pose an interesting set of, conclusions. On one hand we have sort of a "resurrection" of aether, which is uncomfortable on its own. I'm interested in what knowledgeable members think in regarding this discovery and the implications for GR.

The Higgs condensate is a very odd type of aether - it doesn't have a rest frame. Its density, velocity, and all other physical characteristics are identical in all inertial reference frames. In other words, it's invariant under exactly the same Lorentz transformations that empty space is in special relativity, so there's nothing at all "uncomfortable" about it.

AFAIK, both the Standard Model in physics (dealing with subatomic particles) and GR (dealing with the universe at large) are incompatible.

That's not quite correct. The SM is fully compatible with GR, which is a classical theory of gravity. The problem comes when one tries to quantize GR - but that's a problem pretty much intrinsic to gravity, and one we don't know how to solve even without the SM.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The Higgs condensate is a very odd type of aether - it doesn't have a rest frame. Its density, velocity, and all other physical characteristics are identical in all inertial reference frames. In other words, it's invariant under exactly the same Lorentz transformations that empty space is in special relativity, so there's nothing at all "uncomfortable" about it.

It might be argued that the "uncomfortable" part is semantic, but I lack the knowledge to make an argument, I just talk about several reports I have read.

That's not quite correct. The SM is fully compatible with GR, which is a classical theory of gravity. The problem comes when one tries to quantize GR - but that's a problem pretty much intrinsic to gravity, and one we don't know how to solve even without the SM.

Well, again, semantics, without a way to quantize GR, both theories are incompatible. What I wonder is if the confirmation of the Higgs, would make more difficult to tackle this problem or not, if that makes sense.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Personally, I have thought of a number of questions regarding this discovery:

1. Why is it that photons do not interact with the Higgs field? That is, what is the mechanism which causes other particles to interact with the Higgs, thus creating mass, whereas photons lack this mechanism?

2. How does gravity fit into the Higgs? If the Higgs is responsible for giving particles mass, and gravitational forces act upon mass, is there some kind of tie in or connection between the Higgs field and gravity fields? (I'm particularly interested in this one)

3. What about dark energy? The Higgs field apparently penetrates all of the universe, because we observe all particles in the universe, no matter their location, to have mass (say, via gravitational interaction). And apparently dark energy, whatever it is, also permeates all of the universe; is there a connection between the two?

4. Can the discovery of the Higgs help in the search for dark matter particles? Since we know dark matter interacts gravitationally, then it must have mass, and if it must have mass there should be some kind of relationship to the Higgs field.

Any thoughts?

 

[Wowbagger]

Well, again, semantics, without a way to quantize GR, both theories are incompatible.

The Standard Model and Gravity can certainly be fully compatible with each other, even if we don't know how to quantize Gravity for the Standard Model, yet.

In fact, there are at least a few widely researched theories that do so. One of them is String Theory. Even if you don't accept String Theory, it at least demonstrates that it is possible for the two to be compatible with each other.
It would take a bucket-load of ignorance on the subject to assume they have to be incompatible.

 

[Wowbagger]

1. Why is it that photons do not interact with the Higgs field? That is, what is the mechanism which causes other particles to interact with the Higgs, thus creating mass, whereas photons lack this mechanism?

Is it possible that a photon is a photon BECAUSE it didn't happen to interact with the Higgs, rather than the other way around?

Not every bit of dust in space gets to be part of a planet. Why should we expect every particle to happen to interact with a Higgs field?

 

[Soapy Sam]

What does "interact" mean exactly in this case? "Acquire inertial mass?" "Stick"?

 

[sol invictus]

It might be argued that the "uncomfortable" part is semantic, but I lack the knowledge to make an argument, I just talk about several reports I have read.

Again - there is no tension between relativity and the Higgs condensate. None. That's not semantics, it's just a fact.

Well, again, semantics, without a way to quantize GR, both theories are incompatible.

I don't understand your comment. Quantizing GR is certainly a problem, but it the problematic aspects of it have little or nothing to do with the SM or the Higgs.

What I wonder is if the confirmation of the Higgs, would make more difficult to tackle this problem or not, if that makes sense.

No, it won't. First of all, 95% of theoretical physicists believed the Higgs or something very similar would be discovered, and nearly all their work was based on that assumption. Not discovering it is what would have posed problem.

 

[MattusMaximus]

What does "interact" mean exactly in this case? "Acquire inertial mass?" "Stick"?

That is the question of mechanism to which I am referring in my first question.

 

[sol invictus]

Personally, I have thought of a number of questions regarding this discovery:

1. Why is it that photons do not interact with the Higgs field? That is, what is the mechanism which causes other particles to interact with the Higgs, thus creating mass, whereas photons lack this mechanism?

The Higgs isn't charged under electromagnetism, so photons don't interact with it directly. Neither do gluons, because it doesn't carry SU(3) charge.

2. How does gravity fit into the Higgs? If the Higgs is responsible for giving particles mass, and gravitational forces act upon mass, is there some kind of tie in or connection between the Higgs field and gravity fields? (I'm particularly interested in this one)

Gravity acts on energy, and it acts on all forms of it equally (that's the equivalence principle). The Higgs condensate does gravitate, but in a particularly simple way - it's a contribution to the cosmological constant, or vacuum energy if you prefer. There are other contributions as well and we don't know what they are, and all we can measure is the total.

3. What about dark energy? The Higgs field apparently penetrates all of the universe, because we observe all particles in the universe, no matter their location, to have mass (say, via gravitational interaction). And apparently dark energy, whatever it is, also permeates all of the universe; is there a connection between the two?

See above. Dark energy could be a positive cosmological constant, and the Higgs contributes one - but its contribution is much, much, much larger than dark energy. So something had better be canceling nearly all of it.

4. Can the discovery of the Higgs help in the search for dark matter particles? Since we know dark matter interacts gravitationally, then it must have mass, and if it must have mass there should be some kind of relationship to the Higgs field.

Dark matter is probably another particle, and that particle may or may not get its mass from the Higgs. So it could help in constraining certain theories that otherwise might have been allowed, but it's not much of a guide.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Is it possible that a photon is a photon BECAUSE it didn't happen to interact with the Higgs, rather than the other way around?

Not every bit of dust in space gets to be part of a planet. Why should we expect every particle to happen to interact with a Higgs field?

Because if those particles have mass, then according to the SM they should interact with the Higgs field. That's part of the theory, at least as I understand it at a very limited level.

Think about the photon question this way: photons have energy, right? Well, mass itself is a form of energy (E = mc²), and that formula applies to all other particles of nature as well as photons. So these other non-photon particles have energy, but they also have mass, and they interact with the Higgs field.

But photons don't have mass, and they don't interact with the Higgs. They are the outlier, it seems. Why? What makes them different from all the other particles?

 

[MattusMaximus]

The Higgs isn't charged under electromagnetism, so photons don't interact with it directly. Neither do gluons, because it doesn't carry SU(3) charge.

Okay, but can photons and gluons interact with the Higgs field indirectly? Such as through intermediary particles?

Gravity acts on energy, and it acts on all forms of it equally (that's the equivalence principle). The Higgs condensate does gravitate, but in a particularly simple way - it's a contribution to the cosmological constant, or vacuum energy if you prefer. There are other contributions as well and we don't know what they are, and all we can measure is the total.

Based upon these measurements being announced, do you anticipate that we may have just been able to fill in the contribution due to the Higgs condensate?

See above. Dark energy could be a positive cosmological constant, and the Higgs contributes one - but its contribution is much, much, much larger than dark energy. So something had better be canceling nearly all of it.

Very interesting.

Dark matter is probably another particle, and that particle may or may not get its mass from the Higgs. So it could help in constraining certain theories that otherwise might have been allowed, but it's not much of a guide.

So there are other ways in the SM for particles to acquire mass, at least theoretically?

Thanks, Sol!

 

[pilsan]

What's the Higgs Boson made of?

Phil

 

[sol invictus]

Okay, but can photons and gluons interact with the Higgs field indirectly? Such as through intermediary particles?

Sure - but weakly.

So there are other ways in the SM for particles to acquire mass, at least theoretically?

Yes. For one thing, you can simply add a mass term to the theory. And in fact the composite particles real stuff is actually made out of - like protons and neutrons - get very little of their mass (something like 1% of it) from the Higgs.

What's the Higgs Boson made of?

As far as we know it's a fundamental particle - so nothing, or itself.

 

[Wowbagger]

What's the Higgs Boson made of?

Vibrating, one-dimensional strings?

 

[theprestige]

Given that the Higgs boson has been predicted--and, as I understand it, expected--by mainstream theory for decades, wouldn't the implications of finding it already have been addressed years and years ago, with the implications of predicting it?

I mean, the OP seems to think that finding the Higgs somehow introduces a novel, previously-unconsidered factor into physical theory.

But in fact, what has really happened, other than everybody saying, "oh, yes, it looks like we've been on the right track all along, just as we thought"?

I mean, isn't the real implication of finding the Higgs that the assumptions and conclusions of the SM simply continue as the best approximation of reality so far?

 

[Wangler]

Personally, I have thought of a number of questions regarding this discovery:

1. Why is it that photons do not interact with the Higgs field? That is, what is the mechanism which causes other particles to interact with the Higgs, thus creating mass, whereas photons lack this mechanism?

2. How does gravity fit into the Higgs? If the Higgs is responsible for giving particles mass, and gravitational forces act upon mass, is there some kind of tie in or connection between the Higgs field and gravity fields? (I'm particularly interested in this one)

3. What about dark energy? The Higgs field apparently penetrates all of the universe, because we observe all particles in the universe, no matter their location, to have mass (say, via gravitational interaction). And apparently dark energy, whatever it is, also permeates all of the universe; is there a connection between the two?

4. Can the discovery of the Higgs help in the search for dark matter particles? Since we know dark matter interacts gravitationally, then it must have mass, and if it must have mass there should be some kind of relationship to the Higgs field.

Any thoughts?

No thoughts besides those are good questions as usual from MM.

I will lurk awaiting some informed responses!

ETA: Already received, from SI! I love you guys!

 

[ben m]

Okay, but can photons and gluons interact with the Higgs field indirectly? Such as through intermediary particles?

Yep. That's why one of the discovery searches was "higgs to gamma gamma"---higgs decaying to two photons---which is made possible by a virtual-particle intermediary which is both massive (so it couples to higgs) and charged (so it couples to photons).

 

[Wangler]

Yes. For one thing, you can simply add a mass term to the theory. And in fact the composite particles real stuff is actually made out of - like protons and neutrons - get very little of their mass (something like 1% of it) from the Higgs.

So, is the main trick of the Higgs the symmetry breaking thing that I read about but find hard to understand?